Iris Berent

Reading in English and Chinese : evidence for a universal' phonological principle

Publisher Summary This chapter reveals that reading English and reading Chinese have more in common than has been appreciated when it comes to phonological processes. The text experiments suggest that readers in both systems rely on phonological processes during the comprehension of written text. The lexical experiments show differences just where it is expected : Evidence for early (“prelexical”) phonology in English but not in Chinese, but evidence for still-early (“lexical”) phonology in Chinese. The time course of activation appears to be slightly different in the two cases. Thus, the similarity between Chinese and English readers is shown not in their dependence on a visual route, but in their use of phonology as quickly as allowed by the writing system. Phonological processes are pervasive in reading, with respect to various reading processes (from comprehension to word identification), with respect to writing systems (from Chinese to English to Serbo-Croatian), and with respect to individuals (from children to hearing and deaf adults of high reading skill). The universality of phonologically referenced language assures that the achievement of reading will make use of it. The acquisition of visually based spelling representations may (or may not) reduce the role phonology plays in recognizing words, but it does not entirely eliminate it. Moreover, the value of phonological representations for memory assures a critical role for phonology in comprehension.

Binding at birth: The newborn brain detects identity relations and sequential position in speech

Breaking the linguistic code requires the extraction of at least two types of information from the speech signal: the relations between linguistic units and their sequential position. Furthermore, these different types of information need to be integrated into a coherent representation of language structure. The brain networks responsible for these abilities are well known in adults, but not in young infants. Our results show that the neural architecture underlying these abilities is operational at birth. In three optical imaging studies, we found that the newborn brain detects identity relations, as evidenced by enhanced activation in the bilateral superior temporal and left inferior frontal regions. More importantly, the newborn brain can also determine whether such identity relations hold for the initial or final positions of speech sequences, as indicated by increased activity in the inferior frontal regions, possibly Brocas area. This implies that the neural foundations of language acquisition are in place from birth.

Phonological priming in the lexical decision task: regularity effects are not necessary evidence for assembly.

The contribution of assembled phonology in reading English was examined in the lexical decision task by comparing two markers: regularity effects and phonological priming. Strategic control was assessed by manipulating the phonological lexicality of the foils: Experiment 1 used legal nonwords, whereas Experiment 2 used pseudohomophones. Replicating existing findings, null regularity effects were obtained in the presence of legal nonwords. Modest regularity effects, in accuracy only, were observed with pseudohomophone foils. In contrast, phonological priming effects emerged in each of the experiments, regardless of the presence of regularity effects. Assembled phonology thus constrains reading under conditions that strongly discourage its use. However, regularity effects are not necessary evidence for its presence. The dissociation of regularity and phonological priming effects is discussed in terms of the two-cycles model.

The phonological mind

Humans weave phonological patterns instinctively. We form phonological patterns at birth, we spontaneously generate them de novo, and we impose phonological design on both our linguistic communication and cultural technologies--reading and writing. Why are humans compelled to generate phonological patterns? Why are phonological patterns intimately grounded in their sensorimotor channels (speech or gesture) while remaining partly amodal and fully productive? And why does phonology shape natural communication and cultural inventions alike? Here, I suggest these properties emanate from the architecture of the phonological mind, an algebraic system of core knowledge. I evaluate this hypothesis in light of linguistic evidence, behavioral studies, and comparative animal research that gauges the design of the phonological mind and its productivity.

Language universals at birth

Significance It is well known that across languages, certain structures are preferred to others. For example, syllables like blif are preferred to syllables like bdif and lbif. But whether such regularities reflect strictly historical processes, production pressures, or universal linguistic principles is a matter of much debate. To address this question, we examined whether some precursors of these preferences are already present early in life. The brain responses of newborns show that, despite having little to no linguistic experience, they reacted to syllables like blif, bdif, and lbif in a manner consistent with adults’ patterns of preferences. We conjecture that this early—possibly universal—bias helps shaping language acquisition. The evolution of human languages is driven both by primitive biases present in the human sensorimotor systems and by cultural transmission among speakers. However, whether the design of the language faculty is further shaped by linguistic biological biases remains controversial. To address this question, we used near-infrared spectroscopy to examine whether the brain activity of neonates is sensitive to a putatively universal phonological constraint. Across languages, syllables like blif are preferred to both lbif and bdif. Newborn infants (2–5 d old) listening to these three types of syllables displayed distinct hemodynamic responses in temporal-perisylvian areas of their left hemisphere. Moreover, the oxyhemoglobin concentration changes elicited by a syllable type mirrored both the degree of its preference across languages and behavioral linguistic preferences documented experimentally in adulthood. These findings suggest that humans possess early, experience-independent, linguistic biases concerning syllable structure that shape language perception and acquisition.

Universal Constraints on the Sound Structure of Language: Phonological or Acoustic?.

Languages are known to exhibit universal restrictions on sound structure. The source of such restrictions, however, is contentious: Do they reflect abstract phonological knowledge, or properties of linguistic experience and auditory perception? We address this question by investigating the restrictions on onset structure. Across languages, onsets of small sonority distances are dispreferred (e.g., lb is dispreferred to bn). Previous research with aural materials demonstrates such preferences modulate the perception of unattested onsets by English speakers: Universally ill-formed onsets are systematically misperceived (e.g., lba --> leba) relative to well-formed onsets (e.g., bn). Here, we show that the difficulty to process universally ill-formed onsets extends to printed materials. Auxiliary tests indicate that such difficulties reflect phonological, rather than orthographic knowledge, and regression analyses demonstrate such knowledge goes beyond the statistical properties of the lexicon. These findings suggest that speakers have abstract, possibly universal, phonological knowledge that is general with respect to input modality.

The Nature of Regularity and Irregularity: Evidence from Hebrew Nominal Inflection

Most evidence for the role of regular inflection as a default operation comes from languages that confound the morphological properties of regular and irregular forms with their phonological characteristics. For instance, regular plurals tend to faithfully preserve the bases phonology (e.g., rat-rats), whereas irregular nouns tend to alter it (e.g., mouse-mice). The distinction between regular and irregular inflection may thus be an epiphenomenon of phonological faithfulness. In Hebrew noun inflection, however, morphological regularity and phonological faithfulness can be distinguished: Nouns whose stems change in the plural may take either a regular or an irregular suffix, and nouns whose stems are preserved in the plural may take either a regular or an irregular suffix. We use this dissociation to examine two hallmarks of default inflection: its lack of dependence on analogies from similar regular nouns, and its application to nonroots such as names. We show that these hallmarks of regularity may be found whether or not the plural form preserves the stem faithfully: People apply the regular suffix to novel nouns that do not resemble existing nouns and to names that sound like irregular nouns, regardless of whether the stem is ordinarily preserved in the plural of that family of nouns. Moreover, when they pluralize names (e.g., the Barak-Barakim), they do not apply the stem changes that are found in their homophonous nouns (e.g., barak-brakim “lightning”), replicating an effect found in English and German. These findings show that the distinction between regular and irregular phenomena cannot be reduced to differences in the kinds of phonological changes associated with those phenomena in English. Instead, regularity and irregularity must be distinguished in terms of the kinds of mental computations that effect them: symbolic operations versus memorized idiosyncrasies. A corollary is that complex words are not generally dichotomizable as “regular” or “irregular” different aspects of a word may be regular or irregular depending on whether they violate the rule for that aspect and hence must be stored in memory.

Roots, stems, and the universality of lexical representations: Evidence from Hebrew

Is the structure of lexical representations universal, or do languages vary in the fundamental ways in which they represent lexical information? Here, we consider a touchstone case: whether Semitic languages require a special morpheme, the consonantal root. In so doing, we explore a well-known constraint on the location of identical consonants that has often been used as motivation for root representations in Semitic languages: Identical consonants frequently occur at the end of putative roots (e.g., skk), but rarely occur in their beginning (e.g., ssk). Although this restriction has traditionally been stated over roots, an alternative account could be stated over stems, a representational entity that is found more widely across the worlds languages. To test this possibility, we investigate the acceptability of a single set of roots, manifesting identity initially, finally or not at all (e.g., ssk versus skk versus rmk) across two nominal paradigms: CéCeC (a paradigm in which identical consonants are rare) and CiCúC (a paradigm in which identical consonants are frequent). If Semitic lexical representations consist of roots only, then similar restrictions on consonant co-occurrence should be observed in the two paradigms. Conversely, if speakers store stems, then the restriction on consonant co-occurrence might be modulated by the properties of the nominal paradigm (be it by means of statistical properties or their grammatical sources). Findings from rating and lexical decision experiments with both visual and auditory stimuli support the stem hypothesis: compared to controls (e.g., rmk), forms with identical consonants (e.g., ssk, skk) are less acceptable in the CéCeC than in the CiCúC paradigm. Although our results do not falsify root-based accounts, they strongly raise the possibility that stems could account for the observed restriction on consonantal identity. As such, our results raise fresh challenge to the notion that different languages require distinct sets of representational resources.

Language universals and misidentification: a two-way street.

Certain ill-formed phonological structures are systematically under-represented across languages and misidentified by human listeners. It is currently unclear whether this results from grammatical phonological knowledge that actively recodes ill-formed structures, or from difficulty with their phonetic encoding. To examine this question, we gauge the effect of two types of tasks on the identification of onset clusters that are unattested in an individual’s language. One type calls attention to global phonological structure by eliciting a syllable count (e.g., does medif include one syllable or two?). A second set of tasks promotes attention to local phonetic detail by requiring the detection of specific segments (e.g., does medif include an e?). Results from five experiments show that, when participants attend to global phonological structure, ill-formed onsets are misidentified (e.g., mdif→medif) relative to better-formed ones (e.g., mlif). In contrast, when people attend to local phonetic detail, they identify ill-formed onsets as well as better-formed ones, and they are highly sensitive to non-distinctive phonetic cues. These findings suggest that misidentifications reflect active recoding based on broad phonological knowledge, rather than passive failures to extract acoustic surface forms. Although the perceptual interface could shape such knowledge, the relationship between language and misidentification is a two-way street.

Are phonological representations of printed and spoken language isomorphic? Evidence from the restrictions on unattested onsets.

Are the phonological representations of printed and spoken words isomorphic? This question is addressed by investigating the restrictions on onsets. Cross-linguistic research suggests that onsets of rising sonority are preferred to sonority plateaus, which, in turn, are preferred to sonority falls (e.g., bnif [symbol: see text] bdif [symbol: see text] lbif). Of interest is whether these grammatical preferences constrain the recognition of auditory and printed words by speakers of English--a language in which such onsets are unattested. Five experiments compare phonological lexical decision responses to nonwords, including unattested onsets, through either aural or visual presentation. Results suggest that both hearers and readers are sensitive to the phonotactics of unattested onsets. However, the phonotactic generalizations of hearers and readers differ on their scope and source. Hearers differentiated all three types of onsets (e.g., bnif, bdif, and lbif), and their behavior implicated both grammatical and statistical constraints. In contrast, readers were able to differentiate only those structures similar to attested English onsets from dissimilar structures (i.e., bnif vs. bdif or lbif), and their preferences reflected statistical knowledge alone. These findings suggest that the phonological representations informing lexical decision to spoken and printed words are not isomorphic.